Proposed Changes to DXCC for Remote Stations - Charge to DXAC
|
Barry Porter KB1PA
Some have hit on the "problem to be solved"
Next time, on zoom or when in person (remmber those tomes? :):). ). look around the room. I am willing to bet the average age of a DX club (or general club) is north of 75 years old. If we all don't start to open up and attract younger DX'ers, I give the DX program maybe 10 years before it vanishes to the dust heap of history. This bothers many. When they became DX'ers, there was no such thing (or very limited) as remote ham station access. Today, a vast majority of hams are prohibited from haven outside antennas (this bother me more than I can put in words). Without the ability to access a remote station, there will be no participation from these radio operators. Also the FCC, in their infinite wisdom :):). removed the need for a station license, allowing operation anywhere in the US. A ham should be free to operate any station in the US for any reason, with their current call. Those that "propagation shop" will know they are doing it, and it will be on their conscious. It should not bother anyone or any organization. As long as you are operating under the rules, who cares (and there are many Dxers and Contesters that blatantly cheat, but there is no proposal to stop that). Just because it has always been done that way is not an excuse. If we all don't wake up and smell the coffee, and don't try to discourage newcomers (which is what this proposal will do), the DX groups will all go away. Barry Porter, KB1PA |
|
|
|
|
|
Murray Green <k3beq@...>
The reality is that the younger generation is simply not accepting Amateur Radio sufficiently enough to lower the average Amateur age and provide a future for the amateur community. The League, out of political necessity, has attempted to turn it around bur it is not happening despite a strong effort to do so. It is failing and I do not have any ready answers...As a result the entire face of Amateur Radio will eventually change. A 1% growth year after year cannot be sustained and the monthly list of silent keys continues. The latter will not stop; the former will.
Perhaps we are too close to the problem. The answers are out there; it will take greater minds to find them......
73 Murray, K3BEQ
==================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Barry Porter KB1PA <kb1pa@...> To: ARRL-Awards@... Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2020 10:54 am Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] Proposed Changes to DXCC for Remote Stations - Charge to DXAC Some have hit on the "problem to be solved"
Next time, on zoom or when in person (remmber those tomes? :):). ). look around the room. I am willing to bet the average age of a DX club (or general club) is north of 75 years old. If we all don't start to open up and attract younger DX'ers, I give the DX program maybe 10 years before it vanishes to the dust heap of history. This bothers many. When they became DX'ers, there was no such thing (or very limited) as remote ham station access. Today, a vast majority of hams are prohibited from haven outside antennas (this bother me more than I can put in words). Without the ability to access a remote station, there will be no participation from these radio operators. Also the FCC, in their infinite wisdom :):). removed the need for a station license, allowing operation anywhere in the US. A ham should be free to operate any station in the US for any reason, with their current call. Those that "propagation shop" will know they are doing it, and it will be on their conscious. It should not bother anyone or any organization. As long as you are operating under the rules, who cares (and there are many Dxers and Contesters that blatantly cheat, but there is no proposal to stop that). Just because it has always been done that way is not an excuse. If we all don't wake up and smell the coffee, and don't try to discourage newcomers (which is what this proposal will do), the DX groups will all go away. Barry Porter, KB1PA |
|
|
|
|
|
W0MU
Strong efforts into things
that have not worked. Has the board reached out to those wishing
to stream, younger hams and asked what they would like to see.
Why is the ARRL not leading the pack when it comes to youth ham
radio. Why is another entity leading the pack and offering young
hams the availability to stations that they would not have access
too. Why is W1AW locked down even to member? Why does the ARRL
not build and allow the members access to a remote station or even
create a youth organized station for their use.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Strong efforts into the wrong places will not work. There is quite a long history of declining membership lately. I have heard good things about the new magazine alternative to QST but I have not seen it. I suppose I could go online to read it. Why not send them both out to hams in the hopes that some of them will be given to people that will pick up the hobby? Why did they not send out a copy to everyone to show off the works? Does the ARRL send this new magazine to clubs? or their VE's to hand out? My son has been licensed for nearly 15 years already. He is 25. He has little interest in the hobby as it stands. He also has zero time as he is running his own business and has a personal life that happens at that age. There has been very little change in the ARRL since he has been licensed. When he hears about the push back to streaming and live streams he gets turned off. This is their life! He understands he may never own a piece of land that might allow him a station like I have. He understands that remote radio is the future, yet when he hears about the push back is is turned off. If we want our hobby to survive and continue we cannot continue down the paths that are not working. We need to listen to THEM and start to understand what excites and interests THEM. If you want to see some excitement from young hams check out what the RHR guys and W2RE are doing for THEM. They created their own contest, have their own slack channel, they want to livestream and while they have access to remotes stations many of them are trying to build their own shacks! It works! What they are doing is working and inspiring a new generation of hams! Instead of what the RHR is doing we have Directors making false statements about the DXAC and trying to take the ARRL Back to the age of the dinosaurs with proposals that limit participation in programs instead of embracing new technologies that would open their programs to more people. Is ARRL the solution or the problem................ W0MU On 8/6/2020 9:41 AM, Murray Green via
groups.arrl.org wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kermit Lehman
Hi,
I thought the remote issue was hashed over a few years ago (as per the references) and settled. Why has it come up again?
The fewer rules and restrictions, the better.
In any case, it's a boutique problem for large land area countries containing remote stations. It's difficult for me to believe that it's a big issue, or an issue at all, for most DXCC members in most countries. And it certainly isn't an issue for young hams or potential hams whose lives are going to be lived forward, not backward.
73,
Ken, AB1J
-----Original Message-----
From: W0MU <w0mu@...> To: ARRL-Awards@... Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2020 3:26 pm Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] Proposed Changes to DXCC for Remote Stations - Charge to DXAC I wonder what the demographics are of those for this change vs those
against the change. I am 55. I am very much for Remote operations and allowing people the freedom to operate the way they please. W0MU |
|
|
|
|
|
W0MU,
We are conflating a lot of important topics and I agree with you on each of them. The original focus was on remote stations. They are fine, but varied in character and use. If the remote is my primary station and it's mine, that is one case. Another is the rental remote. Again, fine but a different case.
I know guys who have cancelled their plans to retire to Maine because of the remotes. If they were categorized separately, the locals and the remotes would only compete for bandwidth. A local has to address local conditions that uniquely impact local operators. Sleep cycles, work and worship hours, and weather can impact a local operator's performance in ways that a remote operator may not have to address. To be clear, both modes are good, just different.
On the subject of getting youth on the air in an HOA, deed restricted and zoning limited world of cookie-cutter homes is simply frigjtening. You can't have certain vehicles in some neighborhoods. I have a RAM Promaster with windows all around, and because of the antennas, I get comments - usually snarky. Well, we (Nancy, N2FWI and I) raised three sons who are licensed Amateurs, Eagle Scouts and employed. They too, are busy with getting careers moving, but there may a time when life settles down and there is time to operate.
I have neighbors who don't like my truck, or my antennas, but their kids are bored and barely going through life. We have a cookie-cutter world and that is driving down creativity and enabling this heightened level of narcissism as seen on the Internet as a path to fulfillment. It started with participation trophies and this is where we are now.
We need to sort out what interests younger folks, even if it will fit better once they hit 40 or 50. Our sons understand why Dad has 100+ US Patents - they grew up around it and the richness of life that God gave us that enabled that intellectual property. The challenges are deeper than what the ARRL can do by itself. It is a societal deficit that we are trying to fix.
Vy 73,
Gordon Beattie, W2TTT
201.314.6964
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fun of DXCC is tracking them down (not so much any more) and working them. The paid paperwork from Newington is just that – paperwork to tell you how many you worked (which you already knew).
73, Hans, K0HB
From: Dave AA6YQ
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 18:48 To: ARRL-Awards@... Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] Proposed Changes to DXCC for Remote Stations - Charge to DXAC
If “DXCC is not (supposed to be) a competition”, why does the ARRL publish standings?
I’ve never attended a major DX club meeting that didn’t begin with a “sit down”, in which the person with the most DXCC entities confirmed is left standing at the end.
The Northern California DX Club, which motivated me to earn DXCC so that I could join back in 1990, publishes a monthly “ladder” showing the DXCC totals of its members, from largest to smallest.
The competition is (mostly) friendly, with more experienced DXers providing advice and coaching to newer DXers, and spotting rare DX that their competitors may need.
Not everyone is a competitive DXer; every DXer sets his or her own objectives, free of criticism from anyone else. But many DXers are competitive, including me.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
From: ARRL-Awards@... [mailto:ARRL-Awards@...] On Behalf Of Abrams, Saul (DHSES) via groups.arrl.org
Let me begin by saying that the DXCC rules for operators must be consistent for all operations. If I can fly to Maine or California to work DX or a DXpedition generally unavailable from my home, and the contacts count for DXCC, then there is no logical reason why working them from home via remote should count any less. Neither contact is being made by a radio at my home. We may not like that some people can remote to work DX, but they could just as easily have flown to those stations to operate. The only difference is time and money. So, unless we are willing to revert back to the pre-1986 rule about working all DX from within a fixed distance from our homes under all circumstances, then there is no basis for a rule treating remotes any differently.
Next, I think the 2017 Report of the DXAC says something different than that summarized by N4MB. (The link to the 2014 Report only brings up the ARRL logo.) The 2017 Report says:
“In summary 1.) There was no strong consensus to change Rule 11 2.) There was a surprising lack of enthusiasm on the part of DXAC to deal with this tasking. 3.) There was a general unhappiness with the whole remote issue as it deals with DXCC, but the feeling that the decision had already been made and unless that decision was re-considered in its entirety, there was little that could be recommended to improve potential problems.”
“[R]e-considered in its entirety,” in my opinion, would also have to reconsider the 1986 change allowing country-wide DXCC operation. While the 2014 Report quoted below recommended some mileage limitation, the PSC did not adopt it and the later 2017 Report did not recommend it again.
Finally, I don’t think we want to go down the path mentioned below that “This [remote operation] has deprecated the need for operators to learn to take advantage of propagation or to build and improve stations; “Propagation shopping” allows operators to simply click to find the “loudest signal” thus not developing skills for communication.” We should not be making value judgments about necessary skills and basing recommendations on those judgments, because other, recently popular modes of operation require very little “skill for communication.” Do you really want to go there?
As many have said before, DXCC is not (supposed to be) a competition. It is a reflection of ones own accomplishments. What someone else does, does not diminish what I have done. 73, Saul K2XA
Saul M. Abrams, J.D. Disaster Assistance Representative
Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Services 1220 Washington Avenue, Building 7A, 4th Floor, Albany, NY 12242 (518) 417-6029 | Cell (518) 810-7171 | FAX (518) 322-4984
From: ARRL-Awards@... <ARRL-Awards@...> On Behalf Of Mickey Baker N4MB via groups.arrl.org
Please note that these are proposed changes, posted here for polite pubic comment. Rule Change Proposal for Using Remote Stations for DXCC Credit
History The DX Advisory Committee (DXAC) examined the utilization of remote station operation for DXCC credit and recommended in their report on July, 2014:
"The DXAC favored the proposed change of rule I.9, stating, however, some distance limitation should be included for the remote station. Using an idea similar to that used for contest stations, establishing a distance of 200km separation between the remote station and the operator’s home station location and that no part of a remote station can be located more than 200km from any other part.[i]
The DX Advisory Committee was charged in 2017 to reexamine the issues around remote-controlled operations and had a very poignant and emphatic answer:
Part of the charge read, “Please consider potential ethical issues with regard to legal, remote-controlled operations, and how these operations comport with DXCC rules. Then, please consider DXCC Rule 11.” The remainder of the charge was detailed and extensive.[ii]
The reply included the following from the DXAC: “…the DXAC was being asked to consider an ethics statement that it had previously suggested not be accepted, and dealt with an issue (unlimited use of remote radio stations) to make contacts which would be used for DXCC credit that the DXAC had recommended against.”
Both complete reports from the DXAC are available. Links to both documents are below.
The ARRL Programs and Services Committee nor did the full Board take action based on these recommendations, three years apart, nor since;
Many active and successful DX Operators who have been long time supporters of the ARRL have complained that the current rule, Section 1, Rule 9, allows stations to “shop propagation” from moment to moment using services that rent or otherwise share a number of remotely controlled stations geographically diverse stations located throughout the same DX Entity;
While the League wishes to encourage the use of remote stations, “propagation shopping” has resulted in many amateurs with smaller stations to be overpowered and displaced by the use of remote “super stations.” This has deprecated the need for operators to learn to take advantage of propagation or to build and improve stations; “Propagation shopping” allows operators to simply click to find the “loudest signal” thus not developing skills for communication. For the DXCC Honor Roll achievement to be equitable, this practice should be discouraged, so that this achievement is more of a reflection of the art of DX’ing;
ARRL recognizes the need for amateurs to use their own stations, whether at their primary residence or a remote residence, or to use a third party station for DXCC if it is impossible to build out a station at their home.
We propose this change in the DXCC rules which are fair to those who have made contacts to date, easy to understand and with which to comply, and limits “propagation shopping” for DXCC award credit going forward;
Program and Services Committee, after receiving considerable input worldwide with the specified recommendations from the DX Advisory Committee, propose the following DXCC rule change to the ARRL Board of Directors for approval to change Section I, Rules 9 and 11 as follows:
Amend Section I, Rule 9, of the DXCC Rules which currently reads, “a) All stations used to make contacts for a specific DXCC award must be located within the same DXCC entity.”
To: “a) All station transmitters and receivers used to make contacts for a specific DXCC award on or after the date of adoption of this rule must be located within the same DXCC entity, with additional restrictions regarding remote operation. Any and all remote contacts submitted for DXCC must be conducted with the transmitters and receivers: 1. Within a circle with a radius of 200km from the applicant’s permanent address as shown on their license. If the license does not specify a geographic address, the radius center will be the post office serving the applicant. This provides for remote operation of an applicant’s primary station from anywhere, or an additional station within the circle, OR; 2. Within a circle with a radius of 200km from the applicant’s location at the time of the contact. This provision provides for the travelling amateur, who often carries and establishes a temporary station, and the remote use of that station within 200km of the applicant’s location at the time of the contact, OR; 3. A single additional geographic location specified by the applicant. This additional geographic location may be changed only once per consecutive year – once established by making a contact from a location only that location may be submitted for credit for one contiguous calendar year. An example would be the applicant may choose their own vacation home station operated remotely, or a single commercial remote superstation that is beyond the 200km from their home location. Multiple additional remote locations are not permitted to discourage “propagation shopping.”
All claimed DXCC Contacts Until the date of adoption of this rule, will be honored as per the prior rule in effect.
Amend Section I, Rule 11, of the DXCC Rules which currently reads: 11. Issues concerning remotely controlled operating and DXCC are best dealt with by each individual carefully considering the ethical limits that he/she will accept for his/her DXCC and other operating awards. As the premier operating award in Amateur Radio, DXCC draws intense scrutiny from its participants. As DX chasers climb up the Standings there will be increased attention given to these achievements and the owner of these achievements needs to be comfortable standing behind his/her award and numbers. Peer attention has always been a part of awards chasing, of course, but in these times with so many awards and so many players it is more important than ever to 'play the game' ethically.
Technological advances, while welcome, also add to the difficulty in defining rules for DXCC, but the intent of the rules is what is important. It is never OK to remotely use a station outside of the 'home DXCC entity' to add to the home-entity DXCC totals -- just as it is never OK for you to ask someone else at another station in another place to make QSOs for you. Remotely controlled stations must be properly licensed if they are to count for DXCC. It will continue to be up to the operator to decide what types of legal remote control operating he/she will use (if any) to contribute to an operating award.
To the following: 11. Issues concerning remotely controlled operating and DXCC are best dealt with by each individual carefully considering the limits defined by the DXCC and other operating awards. As the premier operating award in Amateur Radio, DXCC draws intense scrutiny from its participants. As DX chasers climb up the Standings there will be increased attention given to these achievements and the owner of these achievements needs to be comfortable standing behind his/her award and numbers. Peer attention has always been a part of awards chasing, of course, but in these times with so many awards and so many players it is more important than ever to 'play the game' ethically.
Technological advances, while welcome, also add to the difficulty in defining rules for DXCC, but the intent of the rules is what is important. It is never OK to remotely use a station outside of the 'home DXCC entity' to add to the home-entity DXCC totals -- just as it is never OK for you to ask someone else at another station in another place to make QSOs for you. Remotely controlled stations must be properly licensed if they are to count for DXCC. It will continue to be up to the operator to decide what types of legal remote control operating he/she will use (if any) to contribute to an operating award.
[i] July 2014 DXAC Report to the PAC http://www.arrl.org/files/file/About%20ARRL/Committee%20Reports/2014/July/Doc_27.pdf,
[ii] July 2017 DXAC Report to the Programs and Services Committee
|
|
|
|
|
|
sk33t3r
I would like to see that change along with even a move within the U.S. of one's home station beyond a certain distance. Using the ability to "move" shouldn't be allowed so that you can simply tweak your count. To ignore distance and geographical difference in locations as a benefit, or hindrance, to ones ability to make a contact is just not being realistic.
-Rick, AA3C |
|
|
|
|
|
Tony KX1G <tony.dicenzo@...>
As i understand this, i would NOT be violating either rule by using my home station when i was living in a remote location. The example is me spending the winter months in florida. I would access my home station remotely from Florida. The station where i made my dxcc contacts has not moved, i have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
doubleopat7@...
I'm one of those "RHR Youths". I know that the average DXer has a lot of money throw around. But in my case since I'm 17, I don't qualify for social security or even a pension yet; yet meaning 2 million years when I actually want to be old. I don't even have a will from my wife to fund the legal limit amps I want to get. I don't even have a wife or know of any girl who wants me yet.
Because I'm young and penniless, I can't go out and play like big DXers can. I would not be in this hobby if it were not for remotes. Because there was an overall failure of sharing the hobby locally, there's been a success sharing it online. Do you really want to shut it down by excommunicating remote stations? Yesterday I was told I will be appointed Assistant Section Youth Coordinator for the state of Indiana. Please don't kill off remote operating I beg you. I need it as a resource to offer to people my age who want to DX but suffer from the systemic oppression of being new and penniless. Also we live in HOAs and tiny spaces because our mommies and daddies decided to start their families in suburbs where neighbor Nazis exist. Sorry I hurt your feelings but this is the reality that you need to wake up to and why remotes are very important to young operators. W9GGG Patrick Gawthrop - "Youth" |
|
|
|
|
|
Like DXCC, earning the Challenge Award is a “cumulative over years” endeavor where, without regard to your buddy across town, you try to add clicks to your own total. And if you find a click that he hasn’t got, you probably alert him to it being on the air. Hardly a competition!
The only “competitive” aspect is the DeSoto cup, a minor sideshow for which you are only eligible once in your lifetime, and which might be a remotely realistic goal for less than perhaps 125 current DXers (those within 200 clicks of the current leader). The other 10’s of thousands of us are just collecting clicks.
73, de Hans, K0HB
From: Dave AA6YQ
+ The “DXCC Challenge Award” is a part of the ARRL’s DXCC Award Program. It is blatantly competitive, given the posted standings and the annual award presentation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Efpophis <efpophis@...>
This is ridiculous.
No one would begrudge me a new entity if I drove across the country and operated a friend's superstation to get it. The internet merely saves me the trip. Keep the rules the way they are and let technology help those less fortunate who can't build a superstation, but can rent a few. People who think it's somehow cheating said the same thing about AM, SSB, and every new technology that's helped ham radio become easier and more fun for the masses. They need to get their heads out of the sand and stop acting like elitist jerks. Don't like remote operation? Fine, don't do it. But stop trying to ruin it for everyone else. |
|
|
|
|
|
This is exactly why youths are few and far between in this hobby. Changing the rules that have been already set is very upsetting. I am 18 years old and frankly I would not really be on the air if it was not for remote operations like the RHR Youth program. I see no issues with remote operations as it is the same as some OM traveling to the west coast to work Asia easier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Risking life and maybe limb ... I will pick
two nits with folks:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
HOA's are not automatically demons. Please stop portraying them as such. We sold "The Farm," where I had plenty of room for antennas with no one to complain about them, to one of our kids and spouse when age began to make maintenance difficult or near impossible. We purposely bought our house here in Sparks for its location, topography [flat lots, no icy hills in winter, and closeness to shopping and major streets/roads]. It is an appropriate distance from our local son and his family. It is an HOA community with deed CC&R's. Our HOA and neighbors are benign and benevolent. No, I can't have my 70' tower in the back yard, I had no expectation or plan for that, and that's not the least bit unusual or strange. I was adamantly opposed to ARRL's ARPA. Had it become law, it would have changed our relationship with our HOA dramatically, and for the worse. In return, my HOA could have met its obligation to allow me "an effective outdoor antenna" by allowing me to have an outdoor, 440 MHz 1/4 wave ground plane. Our HOA maintains the common areas, internal streets, and the rules assure that we'll have a pleasant community to live out our lives. Please stop bashing them generically as if they're all bad just because I can't put up 4 over 4 over 4 on 20 on a 120' tower. I joined the W7RN crew and operate it remotely, it's about 40-45 km LOS from me, full power, very high Coefficient of Aerial Aluminum, and very low man-made noise. I also have a WOOF at home -- end-fed Wire On Organic Fence. If I ever have need to call a roofing company, I'll have them install another invisible wire going up the eave to the ridge, across to the other side, and down that eave. W7RN remote and the WOOF allow me to get as much hamming in as I desire. My second nit is, "What ever happened to the adaptability of hams?" So, let the flames begin 73, Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW Sparks NV DM09dn Washoe County On 8/6/2020 11:45 AM, w2ttt wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
arrl.kvan@...
Why should DXCC be changed for remote stations? I think this is kind of silly for the people who are in HOA's, or apartments. Some people just can't afford to build a top-notch station, so they become members to a company that builds remote stations for other hams. It is a great capitalist strategy that would be great for many hams that just don't have a good property or don't have the money. I am 16 years old and am in the Remote Ham Radio Youth Program. Ray, W2RE, lets youth like us use these incredible remote stations for free. It's not hard to figure out that us youth have limited money and can't put up a superstation (even though our mouths water for money to build one). We have jobs that will pay for college, and after that maybe we can have enough money for a nice superstation, but there are other older hams that just don't have the money. Should they be left out of the fun? No. If you were in there place, would you like to be out of the fun? Probably no.
And the "propagation strategy" thing is kind of understandable, but not at the same time. Yes, you can move from remote station to remote station, but also the "big gun" stations kind of harbor off of that as well. Does a big gun station have a greater advantage over a simple fan dipole? And people still get their DXCC awards, even without a top-notch station. About contesting as well. You may think that using a big remote station in a contest is illegal or unfair, but honestly it really isn't that illegal. It is kind of hard controlling a remote station via the internet in a contest. The internet on Saturday nights may not be as reliable do to people using the internet, and there isn't a knob to turn, however you give up those things to try to get the best score as possible, and it gets you to improve a remote station and solving a problem, which is the technical aspect of the hobby.. It's a lot of fun as well. Running a remote station may just change your minds about this DXCC thing. I hope the ARRL reconsiders this so us youth and other people around the world can get back hunting the good ol' DXCC. Kees Van Oosbree, W0AAE - RHR Youth Member 73 de W0AAE |
|
|
|
|
|
bmanning
I think the current rules are fine. I can go anywhere in the lower 48 and continue my quest. The thought of being 1,000 miles from home and working a ATNO and not having it count would be painful to say the least. So instead of worrying about what someone else has, 1,500 watts and multiple Yagi's, work on what you can do with whatever you have. If someone wants to use multiple remote stations, that's fine with me. I am not competing with them. I am only trying to improve my count and pat myself on the back when I do accomplish something. Lets get out of the 1950's and look ahead and see what is next on the horizon, (this comes from a guy that is 100% CW, 100 watts, and wire antennas). Embrace the new technology and work with the new generation to help them understand how this radio stuff works. 73 Bruce NJ3K On Thu, 06 Aug 2020 15:51:33 -0700, W4IPC <connor@...> wrote:
-- Bruce A. Manning |
|
|
|
|
|
Bernd - KB7AK
So many outspoken Youth members, I am loving it.
73, Bernd – KB7AK (middle age -60)
From: ARRL-Awards@... <ARRL-Awards@...> On Behalf Of bmanning
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 5:11 PM To: ARRL-Awards@... Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] Proposed Changes to DXCC for Remote Stations - Charge to DXAC
I think the current rules are fine. I can go anywhere in the lower 48 and continue my quest. The thought of being 1,000 miles from home and working a ATNO and not having it count would be painful to say the least. So instead of worrying about what someone else has, 1,500 watts and multiple Yagi's, work on what you can do with whatever you have. If someone wants to use multiple remote stations, that's fine with me. I am not competing with them. I am only trying to improve my count and pat myself on the back when I do accomplish something. Lets get out of the 1950's and look ahead and see what is next on the horizon, (this comes from a guy that is 100% CW, 100 watts, and wire antennas). Embrace the new technology and work with the new generation to help them understand how this radio stuff works. 73 Bruce NJ3K On Thu, 06 Aug 2020 15:51:33 -0700, W4IPC <connor@...> wrote:
-- Bruce A. Manning |
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Rutledge <steven.t.rutledge@...>
As far as the HOA issue goes.....I have moved seven times through my career. I have never lived within an "HOA." How was that? Well, I was a ham. I was familiar with antenna restrictions and HOA primacy. Hams who have HOA problems can only blame themselves. They choose to buy in a restricted community, take the deed and agree to do everything that is laid out to them. Then they get in the house and think that they can change everything just for their own interests, everyone else be damned. Pretty selfish I think. There are plenty of places you can live in America that do not have deed restrictions. If you choose to live in a neighborhood that does, that is your choice. Its a free country, at least right now. 73, Steve, N4JQQ
On 8/6/2020 6:40 PM, Skip wrote:
Risking life and maybe limb ... I will pick two nits with folks: |
|
|
|
|
|
The thoughts brought up in this comment are exactly what is wrong and detrimental to the future of this hobby. Us youths live with our parents therefore we have no control where we live. So what you’re saying is that we do not matter? This does not make sense. On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 09:43 PM, Steven Rutledge wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
doubleopat7@...
In regards to HOAs again, the reason why they're painted in a bad light is because they earned that reputation. It's very justified to say that HOAs are frowned upon and are capable of evil. Antennas are an expression of yourself. Why do you not want to be yourself? Why give up by saying it's wrong to feel disappointed? Also, saying that it's your fault that you moved to a community with an HOA is flawed. I didn't chose to live here, my parents did.
73 Patrick Gawthrop W9GGG - 17 - Given permission by an HOA VP to stand up a vertical in the backyard |
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick,
Good for you! You have an exceptional circumstance. Enjoy it and guard it by being a good citizen. What do you do for VHF/UHF antennas?
When I was a teenager in a NYC apartment, my almost invisible SWL antenna was cut down a dozen times before I gave up. People can be very intolerant of what is not familiar, even when it does not encroach on what is theirs.
Vy 73,
Gordon Beattie, W2TTT
201.314.6964
|
|
|
|
